4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Comparison of helium and hydrogen releases in 1 m3 and 2 m3 two vents enclosures: Concentration measurements at different flow rates and for two diameters of injection nozzle

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
卷 42, 期 11, 页码 7542-7550

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.05.217

关键词

Safety; Helium; Hydrogen; Similitude; Fuel cells

资金

  1. Air Liquide Group
  2. CEA
  3. European Community
  4. European Research Infrastructure H2FC European Infrastructure [284522]
  5. BPI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This work presents a parametric study on the similitude between hydrogen and helium distribution when released in the air by a source located inside of a naturally ventilated enclosure with two vents. Several configurations were experimentally addressed in order to improve knowledge on dispersion. Parameters were chosen to mimic operating conditions of hydrogen energy systems. Thus, the varying parameters of the study were mainly the source diameter, the releasing flow rate, the volume and the geometry of the enclosure. Two different experimental set-ups were used in order to vary the enclosure's height between 1 and 2 m. Experimental results obtained with helium and hydrogen were compared at equivalent flow rates, determined with existing similitude laws. It appears, for the plume release case, that helium can suitably be used for predicting hydrogen dispersion in these operating designs. On the other hand - when the flow turns into a jet - non negligible differences between hydrogen and helium dispersion appear. In this case, helium - used as a direct substitute to hydrogen - will over predict concentrations we would get with hydrogen. Therefore, helium concentration read-outs should be converted to obtain correct predictions for hydrogen. However such a converting law is not available yet. (C) 2016 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据